I'm developing a watchOS nap app that detects when the user falls asleep by monitoring heart rate changes. == Technical Implementation == HKWorkoutSession (.mindAndBody) for background execution HKAnchoredObjectQuery for real-time heart rate data CoreMotion for movement detection == Battery Considerations == Heart rate monitoring ONLY active when user explicitly starts a session Monitoring continues until user is awakened OR 60-minute limit is reached If no sleep detected within 60 minutes, session auto-ends (user may have abandoned or forgotten to stop) App displays clear UI indicating monitoring is active Typical session: 15-30 minutes, keeping battery usage minimal == The Problem == HKWorkoutSession affects Activity Rings during the session. Users receive "Exercise goal reached" notifications while resting — confusing. == What I've Tried == Not using HKLiveWorkoutBuilder → Activity Rings still affected Using builder but not calling finishWorkout() (per https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/780220) → Activity Rings still affected WKExtendedRuntimeSession (self-care type) (per https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/721077) → Only ~10 min runtime, need up to 60 min HKObserverQuery + enableBackgroundDelivery (per https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/779101) → ~4 updates/hour, too slow for real-time detection Audio background session for continuous processing (suggested in https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/130287) → Concerned about App Store rejection for non-audio app; if official approves this technical route, I can implement in this direction Some online resources mention "Health Monitoring Entitlement" from WWDC 2019 Session 251, but I could not find any official documentation for this entitlement. Apple Developer Support also confirmed they cannot locate it? == My Question == Is there any supported way to: Monitor heart rate in background for up to 60 minutes WITHOUT affecting Activity Rings or creating workout records? If this requires a special entitlement or API access, please advise on the application process. Or allow me to submit a code-level support request. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Hi, I have an approved com.apple.developer.family-controls entitlement for my main app bundle (com.maxflame.prove-it) and submitted a request on April 18, 2026 to extend it to an embedded extension: com.maxflame.prove-it.DeviceActivityMonitorExtension Request ID: 65CKJZ7DQ4 — status still shows "Submitted" with no further response. The extension uses DeviceActivity callbacks and needs to decode FamilyActivitySelection, which requires the entitlement on the extension bundle as well. In my experience, Family Controls entitlement approvals for the main app bundle have come through within 24 hours. It's now been 5 days with no response for this extension request, which seems unusual. Has anyone else gone through this for extension bundle IDs? Did you need to submit a separate request per bundle, or did Apple extend the approval to your extensions automatically once the main app was approved? And has anyone else experienced longer wait times specifically for extension bundles? Any guidance appreciated.

I'm writing this post out of genuine desperation after exhausting every official support channel available to me. The situation: I've built a screen time / focus app for students called SınavKilidi, specifically designed for Turkish high school students preparing for the YKS university entrance exam — one of the most high-stakes exams in Turkey, taken by hundreds of thousands of students every year. The exam window is approximately 2 months away. This app is inherently seasonal: if it doesn't reach users before the exam season, an entire year of development becomes irrelevant. The main app binary was approved and is live. Everything on the App Store Connect side is fully ready — metadata, screenshots, pricing, in-app purchases, the works. The blocker: My app uses App Extensions that require the com.apple.developer.family-controls entitlement. The main app target received distribution entitlement approval. However, the extensions — which are architecturally inseparable from the core functionality — have not received the same entitlement. Without this, I cannot submit a working build. The app is literally unshippable in its current state despite the main entitlement being granted. This is not a configuration issue on my end. The entitlement is correctly set up in my provisioning profiles. The gap is purely on Apple's approval side for the extension targets. The support experience: I opened Case #102855522321 on March 29, 2026. Since then: I had a call with Apple Developer Support on April 1 I sent follow-up emails on April 1, April 2, April 3, and April 7 Not a single substantive response. Only automated acknowledgements. That is 10+ days, 4 follow-up emails, 1 phone call, and complete silence on an issue that is actively costing me my launch window. What I'm asking: I'm not asking for special treatment. I understand Apple receives thousands of requests. But this entitlement request is for a legitimate, already-partially-approved app, with a documented real-world deadline, in an educational category that Apple actively promotes. Can anyone from the App Review or Developer Relations team look into Case #102855522321 and provide an actual update? Or can anyone here share whether there's a known delay affecting FamilyControls entitlement approvals for extensions specifically? Any guidance would be deeply appreciated. Every day that passes without a resolution is a day closer to this app missing its entire reason for existing.

Hi all, and particularly @Eskimo if you spot this — I believe I'm reproducing the backend issuance bug reported in thread 816377 (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/816377) on a different Team ID and would like a second pair of eyes before I burn a TSI. Feedback Assistant filed as FB22582333. Team ID: MCN4U9B2K4 · Bundle ID: com.michaeltocco.Sanbox · Xcode 17 · iOS 18.5 · Automatic signing Setup App ID com.michaeltocco.Sanbox has ShazamKit ticked in App Services; persists through portal reloads. Local entitlements file declares com.apple.developer.shazamkit = YES only (no MusicKit client entitlement, per DTS guidance in thread 799000: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/799000). CODE_SIGN_ENTITLEMENTS set in both Debug and Release XCBuildConfiguration buildSettings. NSMicrophoneUsageDescription and NSAppleMusicUsageDescription are both present in the generated Info.plist. What Xcode reports After wiping DerivedData and any Sanbox-matching profiles and running xcodebuild … -allowProvisioningUpdates -destination 'generic/platform=iOS': error: Entitlement com.apple.developer.shazamkit not found and could not be included in profile. This likely is not a valid entitlement and should be removed from your entitlements file. (in target 'Sanbox' from project 'Sanbox') What I verified on the profile Apple just issued $ security cms -D -i 0596f302-….mobileprovision | plutil -extract Entitlements xml1 -o - - shows only the baseline four entitlements — application-identifier, keychain-access-groups, get-task-allow, com.apple.developer.team-identifier. com.apple.developer.shazamkit is absent, which is exactly what thread 816377 describes. What I've already tried Deleted and recreated the App ID from scratch — same symptom. Performed the capability-toggle trick (uncheck ShazamKit → Save → wait 60s → re-check → Save → delete local profiles → rebuild) documented in the "Capability & entitlement updates" help page (https://developer.apple.com/help/account/reference/capability-entitlement-updates/) for the Game Center precedent — same symptom. Confirmed I am building for device, not Simulator. Confirmed the entitlement key name matches DTS guidance in thread 799000 and the live profile dumps in thread 816377. Runtime confirmation When I force a build with only the team wildcard profile, SHManagedSession().result() returns com.apple.ShazamKit Code=202 "Missing entitlements", wrapping an AMS 306 wrapping HTTP 401 from api.shazam.apple.com/v1/catalog/US/match. AMS server correlation key: E5VYL5YSUT4L55KQDDP4MJQAZE. So the server side is consistent: the token the client presents lacks ShazamKit scope because the binary doesn't carry the entitlement, and the binary doesn't carry it because Apple isn't issuing it into the profile. Question Is there a configuration step beyond "tick ShazamKit in App Services" that I've missed for Individual-program accounts, or is this the same backend issuance pathology as thread 816377? Happy to share the security cms output, the decoded plist, the build log, or anything else useful. Thanks.

This issue keeps cropping up on the forums and so I decided to write up a single post with all the details. If you have questions or comments: If you were referred here from an existing thread, reply on that thread. If not, feel free to start a new thread. Use whatever topic and subtopic is appropriate for your question, but also add the Entitlements tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Determining if an entitlement is real In recent months there’s been a spate of forums threads involving ‘hallucinated’ entitlements. This typically pans out as follows: The developer, or an agent working on behalf of the developer, changes their .entitlements file to claim an entitlement that’s not real. That is, the entitlement key is a value that is not, and never has been, supported in any way. Xcode’s code signing machinery tries to find or create a provisioning profile to authorise this claim. That’s impossible, because the entitlement isn’t a real entitlement. Xcode reports this as a code signing error. The developer misinterprets that error [1] in one of two ways: As a generic Xcode code signing failure, and so they start a forums thread asking about how to fix that problem. As an indication that the entitlement is managed — that is, requires authorisation from Apple to use — and so they start a forums thread asking how to request such authorisation. The fundamental problem is step 1. Once you start claiming entitlements that aren’t real, you’re on a path to confusion. Note If you’re curious about how provisioning profiles authorise entitlement claims, read TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. There are a couple of ways to check whether an entitlement is real. My preferred option is to create a new test project and use Xcode’s Signing & Capabilities editor to add the corresponding capability to it. Then look at what Xcode did. You might find that Xcode claimed a different entitlement, or added an Info.plist key, or did nothing at all. IMPORTANT If you can’t find the correct capability in the Signing & Capabilities editor, it’s likely that this feature is available to all apps, that is, it’s not gated by an entitlement or anything else. Another thing you can do is search the documentation. The vast majority of real entitlements are documented in Bundle Resources > Entitlements. IMPORTANT When you search for documentation, focus on the Apple documentation. If, for example, you search the Apple Developer Forums, you might be mislead by other folks who are similarly confused. If you find that you’re mistakenly trying to claim a hallucinated entitlement, the fix is trivial: Remove it from your .entitlements file so that your app starts to build again. Then add the capability using Xcode’s Signing & Capabilities editor. This will do the right thing. If you continue to have problems, feel free to ask for help here on the forums. See the top of this post for advice on how to do that. [1] Xcode 26.2, currently being seeded as Release Candidate, is much better about this (r. 155327166). Give it a whirl! Commonly Hallucinated Entitlements This section lists some of the more commonly hallucinated entitlements: com.apple.developer.push-notifications — The correct entitlement is aps-environment (com.apple.developer.aps-environment on macOS), documented here. There’s also the remote-notification value in the UIBackgroundModes property. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase — There’s no entitlement for in-app purchase. Rather, in-app purchase is available to all apps with an explicit App ID (as opposed to a wildcard App ID). com.apple.InAppPurchase — Likewise. com.apple.developer.storekit — Likewise. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase.non-consumable — Likewise. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase.subscription — Likewise. com.apple.developer.app-groups — The correct entitlement is com.apple.security.application-groups, documented here. And if you’re working on the Mac, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony. com.apple.developer.background-modes — Background modes are controlled by the UIBackgroundModes key in your Info.plist, documented here. UIBackgroundModes — See the previous point. com.apple.developer.voip-push-notification — There’s no entitlement for this. VoIP is gated by the voip value in the UIBackgroundModes property. com.apple.developer.family-controls.user-authorization — The correct entitlement is com.apple.developer.family-controls, documented here. IMPORTANT As explained in the docs, this entitlement is available to all developers during development but you must request authorisation for distribution. com.apple.developer.device-activity — The DeviceActivity framework has the same restrictions as Family Controls. com.apple.developer.managed-settings — If you’re trying to use the ManagedSettings framework, that has the same restrictions as Family Controls. If you’re trying to use the ManagedApp framework, that’s not gated by an entitlement. com.apple.developer.callkit.call-directory — There’s no entitlement for the Call Directory app extension feature. com.apple.developer.nearby-interaction — There’s no entitlement for the Nearby interaction framework. com.apple.developer.secure-enclave — On iOS and its child platforms, there’s no entitlement required to use the Secure Enclave. For macOS specifically, any program that has access to the data protection keychain also has access to the Secure Enclave [1]. See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. com.apple.developer.networking.configuration — If you’re trying to configure the Wi-Fi network on iOS, the correct entitlement is com.apple.developer.networking.HotspotConfiguration, documented here. com.apple.developer.musickit — There is no MusicKit capability. Rather, enable MusicKit via the App Services column in the App ID editor, accessible from Developer > Certificates, Identifiers, and Profiles > Identifiers. These app services are tied to your App ID on the server side, meaning that they have no presence in your code signature. com.apple.developer.shazamkit — There is no ShazamKit capability. Like MusicKit, this is an app service. com.apple.mail.extension — Creating an app extension based on the MailKit framework does not require any specific entitlement. com.apple.security.accessibility — There’s no entitlement that gates access to the Accessibility APIs on macOS. Rather, this is controlled by the user in System Settings > Privacy & Security. Note that sandboxed apps can’t use these APIs. See the Review functionality that is incompatible with App Sandbox section of Protecting user data with App Sandbox. com.apple.developer.adservices — Using the AdServices framework does not require any specific entitlement. [1] While technically these are different features, they are closely associated and it turns out that, if you have access to the data protection keychain, you also have access to the SE. Revision History 2026-04-23 Added com.apple.developer.shazamkit to the common hallucinations list. Added a little more info about app services. 2025-12-09 Updated the Xcode footnote to mention the improvements in Xcode 26.2rc. 2025-11-03 Added com.apple.developer.adservices to the common hallucinations list. 2025-10-30 Added com.apple.security.accessibility to the common hallucinations list. 2025-10-22 Added com.apple.mail.extension to the common hallucinations list. Also added two new in-app purchase hallucinations. 2025-09-26 Added com.apple.developer.musickit to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-22 Added com.apple.developer.storekit to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-05 Added com.apple.developer.device-activity to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-02 First posted.

Hi, I’m a paid Apple Developer Program member and I’m seeing an entitlement issuance issue with ShazamKit. ShazamKit is enabled for my App ID (com.tomharris.dnbidfinder) in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles. However, every iOS Development provisioning profile I generate does not include the entitlement: com.apple.developer.shazamkit verified this by decoding the downloaded .mobileprovision file: security cms -D -i .mobileprovision | /usr/libexec/PlistBuddy -c "Print :Entitlements" /dev/stdin The entitlement dictionary does not contain the ShazamKit key. Because of this: • The signed .app does not contain the Shazam entitlement • SHSession.match(signature) fails on device • I receive ShazamKit runtime error 201 / 212 I’ve already: • Toggled ShazamKit off and back on for the App ID • Created new provisioning profiles • Created a brand new App ID to test • Refreshed profiles in Xcode The portal UI shows ShazamKit as enabled, but the entitlement is not being issued into provisioning profiles. Has anyone experienced this before? Is there an additional approval step required for ShazamKit, or could this be a backend entitlement propagation issue? Thanks.

My Family Controls (Distribution) capability request (C4N7962252) was approved March 15, 2026 for bundle ID com.jedsiegel.unplugtogether. All three Family Controls capabilities are enabled on the App ID. When I generate a provisioning profile (manual or automatic), Xcode reports: "Provisioning profile doesn't match the entitlements file's value for the com.apple.developer.family-controls entitlement." I decoded the profile using security cms -D and found: com.apple.developer.family-controls.app-and-website-usage → present com.apple.developer.family-controls → missing entirely My entitlements file requires com.apple.developer.family-controls with value ["individual"] for AuthorizationCenter. I've tried toggling capabilities off/on, deleting and recreating profiles, switching between automatic and manual signing, and clearing provisioning profile caches. Nothing works because the profile generation itself is not including the entitlement. Team ID: Q4RA4WMD6K Xcode 26.3, targeting iOS 26.2 Has anyone encountered this? Is there a way to get the provisioning system to include this entitlement?

Hi everyone, I’m currently implementing Tap to Pay on iPhone following Apple’s official documentation. I’ve completed all the required configurations (entitlements, capabilities, merchant setup, etc.) on the Apple Developer portal. However, when I archive the app and attempt to upload it to TestFlight, I receive the following error: "Profile doesn't support Tap to Pay on iPhone. Profile doesn't include the com.apple.developer.proximity-reader.payment.acceptance entitlement." From what I understand, this seems related to the provisioning profile not including the required entitlement, even though I believe everything has been configured correctly. I have already tried: Regenerating provisioning profiles Verifying App ID capabilities Ensuring the correct entitlements are added in the project But the issue still persists. Has anyone encountered this issue before? Is there any additional approval step required from Apple to enable the Tap to Pay entitlement? I’d really appreciate any advice or experience you can share. Thanks in advance!

I’m looking for some advice regarding the usage of temporary exception entitlements in Mac App Store apps. Specifically the Apple Event Temporary Exception to communicate with other third party applications (not first-party macOS system apps): The Best Practices for Submitting Scriptable and AppleScript Apps to the Mac App Store section is a bit vague (how to 'request' a temporary entitlement?) and I couldn't find it mentioned in the Review Guidelines. Before designing, implementing and testing functionality based on the Apple Event Temporary Exception I’d like to know if these entitlements would: A. Always be rejected on the Mac App Store B. Only accepted in highly specific use cases C. Accepted if there is a clear use case and sufficient argumentation For this particular use case I’d like to send Apple Events to Adobe Illustrator and QuarkXPress. The application helps the user with some design tasks in their documents. The app requests the currently open documents and accesses document content to process used design elements. This is optional functionality that the user must explicitly enable in the app. I’m aware that the com.apple.security.scripting-targets entitlement is preferred. (Side question: are these always allowed or can they also be rejected for third party app scripting?) However, many third party applications don’t offer any scripting access groups in their definition, including Adobe Illustrator and QuarkXPress in this case. So before spending a lot of time implementing this feature I’d like to have some indication whether it is unlikely that sending Apple Events to third party apps will be allowed on the Mac App Store. Thanks for any insights!

Hi all, I'm building an iOS app extension using ExtensionKit that works exclusively with its containing host app, presenting UI via EXHostViewController. I'd like the extension to have read-only access to the host's task for process introspection purposes. I'm aware this would almost certainly require a special entitlement. I know get-task-allow and the debugger entitlement exist, but those aren't shippable to the App Store. I'm looking for something that could realistically be distributed to end users. My questions: Does an entitlement exist (or is one planned) that would grant an extension limited, read-only access to its host's task—given the extension is already tightly coupled to the host? If not, is this something Apple would consider adding? The use case is an extension that needs to inspect host process state without the ability to modify it. Is there a path to request such an entitlement through the provisioning profile process, or is this fundamentally off the table for App Store distribution? It seems like a reasonable trust boundary given the extension already lives inside the host's app bundle, but I understand the security implications. Any insight appreciated. Thanks!

Hello, I submitted a request for the Family Controls (Distribution) entitlement, but haven't received status update regarding approval/rejection etc. I submitted a previous contact support ticket as well. I'm wondering the timeline and also if my request went through - currently it says 'submitted' but it's remained this way for a while... I've had other developers in communities saying they were approved earlier, so curious if it's an app issue. Thank you

Hi everyone, I'm developing a standalone Matter controller app on iOS 18+ using Apple's Matter.framework directly — without integrating with Apple Home or HomeKit. We manage our own Matter fabric and handle the full commissioning flow ourselves. Current setup: BLE-based Matter device discovery and commissioning via Matter.framework Own fabric management (not adding devices to Apple Home) During development, we rely on the "Bluetooth Central Matter Client Developer Mode" profile to enable BLE access The challenge: As we approach our App Store release, we need end users to be able to commission Matter devices without installing any developer profiles. I'm trying to figure out the correct entitlement path for a non-HomeKit Matter controller app in production. Questions: Which entitlements are required for a third-party Matter controller app using Matter.framework directly (not via HomeKit) to work in production? Is there a formal entitlement request process for something like com.apple.developer.matter.allow-setup-payload? If so, where do we initiate it? Are there additional program memberships or certifications required beyond the standard Apple Developer Program membership? We've gone through the Matter framework documentation and relevant WWDC sessions but haven't found a clear answer specifically for non-HomeKit standalone Matter controller apps. Would appreciate any input from Apple staff or developers who've shipped a similar app. Happy to provide more details if needed. Tagging for visibility: @Apple or relevant team — this involves a non-HomeKit Matter.framework usage pattern and entitlement approval process.

Requesting com.apple.managed-keychain Entitlement for Enterprise S/MIME Cert Visibility Platform: iOS | Distribution: MDM (Microsoft Intune) | Not App Store We are developing an internal enterprise iOS app (EMS Assist, com.company.supportcompanion) for Company deployed exclusively to Intune-managed devices. Our requirement: Read S/MIME certificates pushed to the device via Intune SCEP profiles to: Confirm cert presence in the MDM-managed keychain Read expiry date (kSecAttrNotValidAfter) to warn users before expiry Distinguish between missing, expired, and valid cert states What we have tried: Standard SecItemCopyMatching query — returns only app-installed certs, not MDM-pushed certs Graph API (deviceConfigurationStates) — confirms profile compliance but does not expose actual cert expiry or keychain presence Our understanding: com.apple.managed-keychain is required for an app to access MDM-managed keychain items on supervised devices, combined with a matching keychain-access-groups entitlement and the cert profile configured as "always available" in MDM. Questions: Is com.apple.managed-keychain the correct entitlement for this use case? Does it apply to SCEP/PKCS-issued certificates specifically, or only other MDM keychain items? Has anyone successfully accessed Intune-pushed S/MIME certs from an iOS app using this entitlement? Any guidance from the community or Apple engineers would be appreciated.

Hi, I’m looking for clarification from folks familiar with CoreHID rather than App Review, as the guys there have not responded to my post (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/820676) We have a sandboxed macOS app that creates a virtual HID device (HIDVirtualDevice) as described in Creating virtual devices https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corehid/creatingvirtualdevices To work at all, the app requires the entitlement: com.apple.developer.hid.virtual.device With this entitlement present, macOS shows the system prompt requesting Accessibility permission App would like to control this computer using accessibility features. Grant access to this application in Security and Privacy preferences located in System Preferences. when HIDVirtualDevice(properties:) is called. There is no mention of Accessibility in the HIDVirtualDevice documentation, but the behavior is reproducible and seems unavoidable. My question is therefore: Is creating a virtual HID device from userspace via HIDVirtualDevice considered inherently incompatible with Mac App Store distribution? In other words: Is the Accessibility prompt an expected side‑effect of this API? And if so, does that mean using HIDVirtualDevice is only practical for direct (non–App Store) distribution unless the app is explicitly an accessibility tool? I’m not asking about review policy details—just whether, from a technical/system point of view, HIDVirtualDevice is actually intended to be usable by App Store apps. For context, there seem to be public, non‑accessibility uses of Apple’s virtual HID infrastructure, like this recent post: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/820708 and corresponding Github repo this project. I don't know if these intend to use the App Store, but they might end up in the same situation. Any insights from people who’ve worked with CoreHID would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Magnus

Summary I'm implementing NEURLFilter with the com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension.url-filter-provider entitlement for a system-wide URL filtering feature. The feature works perfectly in development-signed builds (connecting successfully to my PIR server over extended testing) but every production-signed build fails before any network call is made. NEURLFilterManager reports .serverSetupIncomplete (code 9). After installing the NetworkExtension debug profile, the unredacted com.apple.CipherML logs reveal the cause: no privacy proxy is provisioned for this bundle identifier, and the connection is configured proxy fail closed. Environment iOS 26 Entitlement: com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension.url-filter-provider Extension point: com.apple.networkextension.url-filter-control PIR server configured via NEURLFilterManager.setConfiguration(...) Privacy Pass issuer configured Dev-signed builds: working correctly, connecting to the PIR server Production-signed builds (both TestFlight and distribution): failing identically The Error Chain Surfaced to the app via NEURLFilterManager.lastDisconnectError: NEURLFilterManager.Error.serverSetupIncomplete (code 9) ← NEAgentURLFilterErrorDomain Code 3 ← com.apple.CipherML Code 1100 "Unable to query status" ← com.apple.CipherML Code 1800 (error details were logged and redacted) After installing the VPN (NetworkExtension) debug profile, the unredacted com.apple.CipherML subsystem shows: queryStatus(for:options:) threw an error: Error Domain=NSURLErrorDomain Code=-1009 "The Internet connection appears to be offline." UserInfo={ _NSURLErrorNWPathKey = satisfied (Path is satisfied), interface: en0[802.11], ipv4, dns, uses wifi, LQM: good, NSErrorFailingURLKey = https://<my-pir-server>/config, NSUnderlyingError = { Error Domain=NSPOSIXErrorDomain Code=50 "Network is down" }, _NSURLErrorPrivacyProxyFailureKey = true, NSLocalizedDescription = "The Internet connection appears to be offline." } The critical diagnostic line in the com.apple.network subsystem is: nw_endpoint_proxy_handler_should_use_proxy Proxies not present, but required to fail closed And the connection setup shows the proxy fail closed flag is mandatory for the connection: [C... ... Hostname#...:443 quic, bundle id: <my-bundle-id>, attribution: developer, using ephemeral configuration, context: NWURLSession (sensitive), proxy fail closed] start The network path itself is healthy (Wi-Fi good, DNS resolves correctly), but the connection is explicitly configured to fail closed if no proxy is present, and no proxy is provisioned for this bundle identifier. The entire failure happens in approximately 18 ms, far too fast for any network round-trip, confirming no traffic ever leaves the device. What I've Verified The entitlement is present in the distribution build The NEURLFilterControlProvider extension loads and returns a valid Bloom filter prefilter (with a tag that round-trips correctly between extension and framework) NEURLFilterManager.setConfiguration(pirServerURL:pirPrivacyPassIssuerURL:pirAuthenticationToken:controlProviderBundleIdentifier:) accepts all four parameters without error Development-signed builds of the same bundle identifier connect successfully to the same PIR server On production-signed builds, zero requests reach the PIR server — failure is purely client-side, before any network activity The Question How does the OHTTP privacy proxy get provisioned for a bundle identifier so that production builds can successfully use NEURLFilter? Specifically: Is there a Capability Request form I need to submit for url-filter-provider? I cannot find one in the Capability Requests section of my developer portal. Should I be running my own OHTTP gateway (for example using swift-nio-oblivious-http), and if so, does Apple then need to provision routing from their OHTTP relay to my gateway URL? Is the OHTTP relay path meant to be automatic once the entitlement is active, and if so, is there a specific activation step I'm missing? Is there any way to verify the current provisioning state for a specific bundle identifier from the developer portal? I can provide the full sysdiagnose and unredacted bundle/server details privately to an Apple engineer if that would help diagnose. I'd prefer to keep them out of a public post. Thanks!

Can a macOS Platform SSO extension reliably identify the original app behind a Safari or ASWebAuthenticationSession-mediated request, or does ASAuthorizationProviderExtensionAuthorizationRequest only expose the immediate caller such as Safari ? We are seeing: callerBundleIdentifier = com.apple.Safari callerTeamIdentifier = Apple audit-token-based validation also resolves to Safari So the question is whether this is the expected trust model, and if so, what Apple-recommended mechanism should be used to restrict SSO participation to approved apps when the flow is browser-mediated.

Hi all, I submitted a FamilyControls entitlement request on March 27, 2026. It has been 9 days with no confirmation or response of any kind. I also submitted a TSI today (Case ID: 102861687343). My app is live on the App Store and is built to use Screen Time APIs to block specific apps during user defined hours. I need FamilyControls, DeviceActivity, ManagedSettings, and ManagedSettingsUI approved for the main app and its extensions. Has anyone experienced similar wait times recently? Is there a way to check on the status of an entitlement request? Thank you, Max

We have an app with the default email entitlement that was granted several years ago. During our latest deployment, we received an error from our pipeline. When testing a manual submission in Xcode, we saw this error: Entitlement com.apple.developer.mail-client not found and could not be included in profile. This likely is not a valid entitlement and should be removed from your entitlements file. We checked the provisioning profile, and the default email entitlement is still present. It is visible on the certificate portal and also in the embedded.mobileprovision file. Can you suggest what we can do to release a new version of our app?

Hi, I’m hoping someone can help clarify the correct entitlement format for the Enhanced Security capability in a macOS App Store build. Context Our app is a sandboxed macOS app built with Xcode 26.4. We enabled the Enhanced Security capability in Signing & Capabilities, and we configured the entitlements based on the current documentation. What’s confusing me The Xcode 26.4 release notes say apps that already adopted Enhanced Security should remove: com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions and replace them with: com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version-string with value 1 com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions-string with value 2 Reference: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode-release-notes/xcode-26_4-release-notes The entitlement reference pages also seem consistent with that: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements/com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version-string https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements/com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions-string So our app currently uses the new -string entitlements with values "1" and "2". Our App Review rejection said: The app incorrectly implements sandboxing, or it contains one or more entitlements with invalid values. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version-string" value must be boolean and true. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions-string" value must be boolean and true. That’s the part I can’t reconcile with the documentation. Questions For a Mac App Store submission built with Xcode 26.4, should these two entitlements use the new string-based form, or Boolean true? If the expected format has changed, is there any updated guidance beyond the Xcode 26.4 release notes and current entitlement reference? If Apple staff or anyone familiar with this can clarify what format is currently expected, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks.

I recently turned on the enhanced security options for my macOS app in Xcode 26.0.1 by adding the Enhanced Security capability in the Signing and Capabilities tab. Then, Xcode adds the following key-value sets (with some other key-values) to my app's entitlements file. <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version</key> <integer>1</integer> <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions</key> <integer>2</integer> These values appear following the documentation about the enhanced security feature (Enabling enhanced security for your app) and the app works without any issues. However, when I submitted a new version to the Mac App Store, my submission was rejected, and I received the following message from the App Review team via the App Store Connect. Guideline 2.4.5(i) - Performance Your app incorrectly implements sandboxing, or it contains one or more entitlements with invalid values. Please review the included entitlements and sandboxing documentation and resolve this issue before resubmitting a new binary. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version" value must be boolean and true. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions" value must be boolean and true. When I changed those values directly in the entitlements file based on this message, the app appears to still work. However, these settings are against the description in the documentation I mentioned above and against the settings Xcode inserted after changing the GUI setting view. So, my question is, which settings are actually correct to enable the Enhanced Security and the Additional Runtime Platform Restrictions?